[opiniojuris] Peter Spiro: Is There Such a Thing as Good Sovereigntism?
Email subscription to blog articles
opiniojuris at lists.powerblogs.com
Fri Feb 22 16:23:26 EST 2008
Posted by Peter Spiro:
Is There Such a Thing as Good Sovereigntism?
http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1203715167.shtml
Judith Resnik gave an interesting talk on local foreign policymaking
at Peggy McGuinnessâ terrific Missouri v. Holland symposium week
before last, based an article she has forthcoming in the Emory Law
Review (proofs [1]here). She catalogues all the (mostly good) ways in
which localities are emerging as international actors. Some of the
themes echo others' work (see for example Catherine Powellâs [2]2001
piece on dialogic federalism in which localities become a key agent on
human rights treaty regimes), although Resnik does hone in on
âtranslocalâ organizations such as the National League of Cities in a
new way, and the packaging is helpful. On the preemption issue, she
calls for a clear statement requirement under which local foreign
policy measures would presumed constitutional unless Congress says
otherwise. I wouldnât argue with that (and [3]in some postures, the
Supreme Court wouldnât, either).
As a frame here and elsewhere Resnik deploys the term sovereigntism in
a way different than [4]I and [5]others have used the term. She
distinguishes exclusive and inclusive versions of the tendency.
Exclusive sovereigntism looks familiar, in the âefforts to buffer the
United States from âforeignâ influences.â But one also finds an
âinclusiveâ variant where (as exemplified by the constitution of South
Africa) âoneâs national identity is predicated on exchanges from
abroad.â
I see the point. Exercises of the national will â in other words,
exercises of national sovereignty â can work to incorporate
international law. Leaving aside the question of whether "exclusive"
sovereigntists actually do privilege the national government when it
comes to foreign relations (as Mike Ramsay noted in the Q&A; see
[6]here and [7]here for two among many examples to the contrary), I
wonder if "inclusive" sovereigntism really captures meaningful
possibilities, at least when it comes to the United States.
That's because acts of national sovereign authority which selectively
incorporate international law are all premised on the ultimate power
to resist international law. Sovereigntists aren't isolationists, but
they like their IL a la carte. In other words, all exclusive
sovereigntists are also inclusive sovereigntists, up to a point. If on
the other hand someone qualifies as an inclusive sovereigntist only if
he accepts IL wholescale and trumping, well, then, not even the South
Africans appear to qualify (their constitution accepts CIL as binding,
but only where it doesn't conflict with a statute or other provisions
of the constitution -- Paquete Habana, anyone?).
At the same time, the foreign policymaking at the local level which
Resnik describes can't itself qualify as sovereigntism of any kind,
because it doesn't represent acts of the national sovereign will. In
fact, the dramatic rise in local activity gives the lie to
sovereigntism of any kind, proving that foreign relations is now
beyond the control of national capitals; in other words, that IL will
insinuate itself into the national fabric regardless of what
Washington thinks it can do. Resnik's paper establishes that in a
highly persuasive way, and the piece is worth a close read.
References
1. http://www.rehnquistcenter.org/Emory.pdf
2. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-9907(200111)150%3A1%3C245%3ADFCPFI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
3. http://supreme.justia.com/us/512/298/case.html
4. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20001101facomment932/peter-j-spiro/the-new-sovereigntists-american-exceptionalism-and-its-false-prophets.html
5. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=517642
6. http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20000626_goldsmith.html
7. http://www.law.nyu.edu/kingsburyb/fall01/intl_law/unit1/ABIDING.HTM
More information about the opiniojuris
mailing list